International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.

2, August 2012, 895-911

Towards an Integrative Theory of Crime and Delinquency: Re-

conceptualizing the Farrington Theory
_____________________________________________________________________

Sonya Buffone∗

Abstract

The Farrington Theory (2003) was developed to explain offending and anti-social
behaviour by working class males. This theory alleges that stability in criminal
behaviour resides in the individual rather than in the environment; the social
problem of crime is largely medicalized, constituting a psychological model of
anti-social behaviour rather than a theory of crime and delinquency. The argument
proposed in this paper is threefold: First, I argue Farrington’s theory is problematic
given that it constructs deviance in a narrow and largely stable manner; therefore,
this theory is better conceptualized as a psychological model of anti-social
behaviour not a theory of crime. Secondly, I argue that integrated theoretical
perspectives offer more nuanced and dynamic explanations and understandings of
crime over the life course. As such, I attempt to address the shortcomings of
Farrington’s model by reframing it in terms of an integrative framework.
Specifically, I use strain theory and control theory to elucidate the importance of
structural and social processes leading to crime and delinquency, and to emphasize
the potential for discontinuity as well as change in criminal propensities over the
life course. I conclude the paper by illuminating the implications of Farrington’s
psychological model in terms of broader policy initiatives.

Introduction

As perhaps one of the most prominent prospective longitudinal studies in developmental

criminology to date the Cambridge study sought to investigate the development of
delinquent and anti-social behaviour in 411 South London boys born in 1953, from the
age of 8 to 48 (Farrington, 2003). Researchers utilized a variety of methods including
surveys, psychological tests, and interviews to examine continuity and discontinuity in
behavioural development, the effects of life events on development, and to predict future
behaviour of the sample of boys (Farrington, 2003). According to Farrington (2003) the
Cambridge study “…was not designed to test any one particular theory about delinquency
but to test many different hypotheses about the causes and correlates of offending…” (pg.
138). To be sure, the Cambridge study is a-theoretical in nature and thus largely method

∗
Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo, Canada, [email protected]

895
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

driven; however, this extensive methodological orientation comes at the expense of

sacrificing theoretical understandings of crime over the life course which has
implications for policy development (Sampson and Laub, 1993).
The findings from the first forty years of the Cambridge study led Farrington to
develop “The Farrington Theory” to explain offending and anti-social behaviour by
working class males. According to Farrington (2003) stability in criminal behaviour
resides in the individual rather than in the environment, as such, Farrington’s theory
largely medicalizes the social problem of crime, thus depicting a psychological model of
anti-social behaviour rather than a theory of crime and delinquency. The argument
proposed in this paper is threefold: First, I argue that Farrington’s theory is problematic
given that it constructs crime and deviance in a very narrow and largely stable manner;
therefore, this theory is better conceptualized as a psychological model of anti-social
behaviour as opposed to a theory of crime. Secondly, I argue that integrated theoretical
perspectives offer more nuanced and dynamic explanations and understandings of crime
over the life course. As such, I attempt to address the shortcomings of Farrington’s model
by reframing it in terms of an integrative framework. Specifically, I use strain theory and
control theory to elucidate the importance of structural and social processes leading to
crime and delinquency, and to emphasize the potential for discontinuity as well as change
in criminal propensities over the life course. Finally, I conclude the paper by illuminating
the implications of Farrington’s psychological model in terms of broader policy
initiatives.

Theory versus Models

Before explicating my argument it is necessary to provide a brief outline as to how

theories and models are to be conceptually distinguished. There is a tendency within the
literature to use the terms theory and model interchangeably as though they represent the
same conceptual tool. However, I contend it is important to distinguish theories of crime
from models of crime. To assume that these terms are synonymous is to undermine the
value that theory has for our understanding of the social world.
In the most basic sense a theory can be conceptualized as a statement of how and
why specific facts are related (Brym, 2004; Macionis and Gerber, 2011). Theories are
informed by epistemological positions pertaining to the nature of knowledge, and
ontological positions concerning the nature of the social world. In essence, theories are
used as guiding frameworks to understand, explain and predict social behaviour. Perhaps,
most significantly theories are dynamic in nature offering nuanced understandings and
explanations of phenomenon. Pfohl (1985: 9-10) describes theories in the following way

Theoretical perspectives provide us with an image of what something is and how we

might best act toward it…Theoretical perspectives transform a mass of raw sensory data
into understandings, explanations, and recipes for appropriate action.

On the other hand, models offer more reductionist descriptions of phenomenon and social
processes. Indeed, models are often presented in a very mechanistic and static fashion, in
other words, models simplify phenomenon while providing “us with the sense of being
in a world of relatively fixed forms and content” (Pfohl, 1985). As such, models produce
the building blocks necessary to develop theories but are not sufficient to stand as

896
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

theories on their own. In sum, the argument proposed in this paper is infused by this very
rudimentary distinction between models and theories. The focus of the paper will now
turn to an overview of the model proposed by Farrington (2003).

The Farrington Theory

Farrington’s model of crime is consistent with broader developmental theories of crime.

Much like the model proposed by Farrington these theories suggest that development
trajectories are linear in nature. As such, developmental theorists are concerned with the
persistence of antisocial behaviour over time (Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt and Caspi, 2001). It
is argued that underlying antisocial tendencies are biologically/psychologically
determined and thus remain relatively stable over the life course. Although discontinuity
in criminal behaviour is sometimes recognized, changes are attributed to biological and
psychological change (Laub and Sampson, 2003).
Farrington’s theory seeks to explain offending and antisocial behavior by working
class males (Farrington, 2003). He differentiates long-term development of antisocial
tendency from “the immediate occurrence of offenses and other antisocial acts” (pg.166)
and contends that persistent individual differences play an important role in accounting
for continuity in offending (Lilly et. al., 2011, italics added). A general overview of
Farrington’s (2003) model suggests that the risk factors contributing to delinquency stem
from the following sources of influence, biological, individual, family, peer, school,
community and society. However, despite Farrington’s alleged concern with the social,
his model downplays continually the social while emphasizing psychological
explanations of delinquency. In fact, Farrington (2003) is particularly concerned with
Individual psychological/behavioural risk factors that contribute to long term
development of antisocial tendencies. For example, he argues that the following “psych-
based” risk factors, low intelligence, aggression, restlessness, impulsiveness, lack of
empathy, and the inability to delay gratification, contribute to long term development of
antisocial tendencies and thus increase significantly the likelihood that the individual will
engage in various forms of criminal and delinquent behavior (Farrington, 2003).
Furthermore, he suggests that these antisocial tendencies are perpetuated by long and
short-term energizing factors that motivate an individual to engage in antisocial
behaviours. In sum, it can be argued that for Farrington the propensity to offend or
engage in other forms of delinquency is contingent namely on the interaction between an
individual possessing a certain degree of antisocial tendencies, the social environment
and a decision-making process in criminal opportunities.
In an attempt to apply his theory to explain some of the results of the study
Farrington (2003: 168) argues:

…children from poorer families may be likely to offend because they are less able to
achieve their goals legally and because they value some goals (e.g., excitement)
especially highly. Children with low intelligence may be more likely to offend because
they tend to fail in school and hence cannot achieve their goals legally. Impulsive
children, and those with a poor ability to manipulate abstract concepts, may be more
likely to offend because they do not give sufficient consideration and weight to the
possible consequences of offending. Also, children with low intelligence and high
impulsivity are less able to build up internal inhibitions against offending. [emphasis
added]

897
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

The statement above elucidates rather clearly that Farrington stresses the psychological
while downplaying structural and social explanations of crime. That said, I do wish to
recognize that to some extent Farrington makes use of some social characteristics in his
theory (such as learning and strain), but ultimately as Jacob (2010) notes, in Farrington’s
view there is no mistaking that “all reasons for committing crime are focused on
individual personality issues” (pg. 26). In the section that follows I elucidate how
Farrington’s model is problematic and make the case for adopting integrative theories to
understand crime and deviance over the life course.

Problematizing Farrington’s Model

In his attempt to, “…propose a larger all-embracing theory” to explain most of the main
findings on criminal careers and risk factors for offending (pg. 165) Farrington fails to
explain how a number of theories are relevant to his model; in fact, when outlining his
model he seemingly deemphasizes the macro-level and micro- level contributions of
these theories of crime while using them to support his psychological model of crime and
deviance. In a sense, Farrington seems to justify this theoretical oversight by arguing that,
“there is far more agreement about risk factors than about their theoretical interpretation
(emphasis added, pg. 165). As such, by focusing on risk factors his model seemingly
simplifies the complex social processes that promote or inhibit delinquent behaviour over
the life course (see for example Laub and Sampson, 2003).
In essence, within Farrington’s model crime and delinquency are rendered to be a
psychological manifestation of an underlying antisocial personality disorder. This focus
is problematic insofar as it offers a relatively narrow conception of crime and
delinquency over the life course while de-emphasizing how social factors operating at
both the macro-structural level and at the micro level (i.e. intimate relationships)
contribute to criminal and antisocial behaviour. Overall, Farrington’s theory offers little
explanation regarding the role of larger external influences such as race, SES,
composition of communities, or schools (Jacobs, 2010). Persistent offending is
conceptualized as an individual–psychological problem rooted in biological deficiencies
and poor parenting, regardless of other social characteristics.
A second major shortcoming of Farrington’s model is the taken for granted
assumption of stability in antisocial behaviour. This view is problematic given that as
Robin’s (1978) explains, “adult antisocial behaviour virtually requires childhood
antisocial behaviour…[but] most antisocial children do not become antisocial adults”
(pg. 611, emphasis added). To address the shortcomings of Farrington’s approach, I argue
that we should continue to develop integrated theories of crime that allow for the merging
of theoretical perspectives. Integrative theories account for the possibility of multiple
pathways leading to delinquency while recognizing the potential for change over the life
course (Lilly et. al., 2011). Moreover, integrative approaches recognize that “competing”
theories focus on different aspects or explanations of delinquent behavior and, as such,
compliment rather than undermine one another (Kaplan, 2003).
A number of scholars have utilized integrative approaches to explain crime over
the life course (Hagan, 1997; Kaplan, 2003; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Wikstrom and

898
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

Loeber, 2000) For example, in contrast to Farrington (2003), Sampson and Laub (1993)
embrace a sociological rather than psychological approach to explain crime and
delinquency. Although these authors recognize that psychological factors may play a role
in explaining individual propensities for crime, they also argue that individuals and social
processes exist within a structural context that is shaped by historical and macro-level
forces that influence delinquent behaviour. Further, they recognize that family processes
of socialization are influenced by structural background factors including, poverty,
residential mobility, family size, employment and immigrant status. As such, to explain
crime across the life course both micro and macro levels of analysis must be considered.
In their research of crime over the life course Sampson and Laub (1993; 2003) adopt an
integrated version of social control theory that recognizes the importance of both
structure and process (pg.247). These authors argue that structural contexts are mediated
by processes of informal social control provided by the family and schools, and that
changes in criminality over the life course can be explained by informal social bonds in
adulthood.
Furthermore, Wikstrom and Loeber (2000) emphasize the importance of adopting
an integrative theoretical framework to explain crime. More specifically, they suggest
that individual-level dispositional characteristics interact with structural characteristics
(i.e. community SES) to influence the decision making process to engage in delinquent
behaviour or avoid it. Finally, Hagan (1997) is particularly critical of developmental
theorist’s overemphasis on the micro and he advocates instead for sociologists to develop
theoretical positions that bridge the division between macro and micro level research on
crime. Hagan’s integrative framework incorporates both historical and contemporary
trends that involve social as well as economic processes that contribute to street crime in
American society.
Although Farrington explicates a largely psychological model of crime, upon
closer examination it might be argued that he alludes to a number of different theoretical
premises yet fails to acknowledge how important elements of strain theory, and control
theory inform his position. I contend that it is crucial to consider how these theories of
crime inform Farrington’s model so that his position reflects an integrative and
comprehensive social theory of crime and delinquency (Akers, 2000; Kaplan, 1984;
2003) as opposed to a linear or mechanistic psychological description of delinquent
behaviour.
The theoretical orientation we adopt informs the policies utilized to govern crime.
Napoleon famously argued that, “In order to govern, the question is not to follow out a
more or less valid theory but to build with whatever materials are at hand” (Napoleon).1
Indeed, I argue that rather than following one perceivably “valid” theory it is best to build
with the materials we have at hand. This form of theoretical building is possible if we
recognize the utility of integrative theories which offer nuanced understandings of the
etiology of crime and deviance by building on existent theoretical orientations. The
argument proposed in this paper is influenced largely by the position advocated by
Sampson and Laub (1993; 2003) which suggests that the causes of crime and deviance
are rooted in structural disadvantage and weakened informal social bonds to family,
school and work (1993: 255). In the following section I will discuss Farrington’s model
in terms of structural disadvantages.
1
Retrieved June 22, 2011 from, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/theory.html.

899
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

Strain Theory

According to Farrington the foremost energizing factors leading to long-term variations

in antisocial tendency include desires for material goods, status among intimates and
excitement (pg. 167, italics added). These desires and antisocial tendencies are ultimately
influenced by risk factors (167).2 Farrington maintains that some of these desires are
more highly valued among children from poorer families, for example, he argues that
excitement is more highly valued by lower-class individuals than by middle-class
individuals because poorer children perceive their lives to be boring. Further, poorer
children, “are less able to postpone immediate gratification in favor of long-term goals”
(pg.167 emphasis added) and are more likely to adopt illegal methods to satisfy their
desires. Consequently, habitual acceptance of socially disapproved methods to satisfy
these desires leads to an increase in antisocial tendency and later delinquency.3
Farrington contends further that maturation and behaviour skills as well as risk factors
determine the methods chosen by individuals. Therefore, for Farrington, the problem is
clearly psychological not structural; he contends for example, that poorer children’s
inability to achieve their desires through legitimate avenues is attributed to their failure in
school, and erratic and low status employment histories (they fail in school and at work
because of their antisocial personality). This proposition emphasizes clearly that long
term antisocial tendencies are influenced by psychological factors while structural
explanations are overlooked. However, I argue elements of strain theory (Merton, 1938)
can be applied to this proposition.
Strain theory holds that deviant conduct emerges when individuals have limited or
no access to institutionalized means by which culturally valued goals may be achieved
(Merton, 1938; Agnew, 2006). In other words, the disjuncture between cultural goals,
whatever they may be, and accessibility via institutional means creates a strain towards
anomie. This strain-engendered position leaves large segments of the population desiring
goals that cannot be attained through conventional means (Lilly et. al., 2011). Deviant
behaviour is a probabilistic outcome of this anomic social structure (Merton, 1938;
Cullen and Messner 2007). Thus, the propensity to commit crime is structured not driven
by the distribution of legitimate means (Bernard, 1997). Further, according to Messner
and Rosenfeld (1994), when a system becomes anomic the capacity of regulative
institutions (e.g. family, school, and law) to control individuals is undermined
exacerbating cultural economic sources of strain (see also Rosenfeld and Messner, 2011).
In terms of Farrington’s proposition, he acknowledges that desires for material
goods, status, and excitement are energizing factors that lead to delinquency but he fails
to acknowledge that these goals are culturally defined, and commonly accepted among
most individuals who live in developed countries. Moreover, Farrington acknowledges
that children from poor families are afforded less opportunities to achieve these goals but
attributes this largely to psychological factors (i.e. low self-control). Farrington’s
proposition therefore does not account for the fact that a structural inability to satisfy

2
As mentioned above low intelligence, aggression, restlessness, impulsiveness, lack of empathy, inability
to delay gratification etc.
3
In a sense, Farrington’s explanation appears to be tautological in nature insofar as risk factors appear to
influence and be influenced by one’s desires.

900
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

these cultural desires may cause individuals from disadvantaged neighborhoods to adapt
by pursuing illegitimate avenues, ultimately leading to long term antisocial tendencies
and various forms of delinquency.4
Farrington’s psychological conception of strain theory is not entirely surprising
given that numerous scholars have interpreted strain and anomie in psychological or
social psychological terms (Bernard, 1997). As a result, Merton’s theory is often mis-
conceptualized as a, “sociological variant of the frustration-aggression hypothesis”
(Bernard, 1997: 265). However, this interpretation of strain theory is largely inaccurate;
For Merton, strain and anomie do not refer to properties of individuals but rather refer to
properties of social structures (Bernard, 1997). According to Bernard (1997) Merton’s
theory is often misinterpreted because he adopts social psychological language to argue
that social structures “exert a definite pressure on certain individuals to engage in non-
conforming rather than conforming conduct” (p.132). Consequently, this “pressure” is
often interpreted, “in terms of frustrating experiences associated with the structurally
induced inability to achieve culturally prescribed goals. The, frustrating experiences then,
are interpreted as causing criminal activity at the individual level-that is, as driving the
individual to commit crime” (265). Nevertheless, Merton does not make this individual-
level argument anywhere in his theory, in fact, he does not offer any claims about the
psychological states of individuals in situations of structural strain (Bernard, 1987).
In sum, there is a tendency for some scholars to interpret strain theory out of
context. To reframe Farrington’s proposition in terms of strain theory is to recognize that
inequality in the economy and in the lives of poor individuals can be attributed to
structural disadvantages beyond the control of those affected (Hagan, 1997; Murray,
1984). Thus, long term patterns of delinquency are understood as a symptom of a
pathological social structure as opposed to a pathological individual.
Farrington’s second proposition suggests that the energizing factors responsible
for short term variations in antisocial tendency include boredom, frustration, anger, and
alcohol consumption and these are influenced by life events. Similar to the first
proposition, this argument focuses on individualized explanations of short term antisocial
tendencies while ignoring structural factors that might contribute to these propensities.
Cohen’s (1955) conception of the subculture of delinquency offers one way to understand
how these energizing factors are influenced at both the macro and micro level. Indeed,
Cohen’s (1955) theory bridges macro and micro level processes that contribute to
delinquency by merging structurally induced strain with notions of cultural transmission
(Lilly et., al., 2011; Williams and McShane, 2004). Cohen (1955) found that delinquent
gangs were heavily concentrated in slum areas. Moreover, according to Cohen (1955),
lower class youth are disadvantaged when it comes to achieving success and status in
conventional institutions given that they lack the legitimate means to achieve such goals
(see also Cloward and Ohlin, 1960). For example, the school system creates a source of
strain by inducing a sense of status deprivation among lower class youth (Bernard, 1997)
insofar as these youth feel forced to compete with middle class children and are also
evaluated on the basis of a middle class measuring rod. These structural conditions lead
to feelings of deprivation and injury resulting in status-frustration (Cohen, 1955). Cohen
argues to cope with these feelings many youth invest themselves in delinquent

4
Merton (1938) identifies this form of adaptation to an anomic social structure as innovation. The
innovator accepts culturally defined goals but pursues illegitimate avenues to pursue those goals.

901
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

subcultures (Cohen, 1955). Therefore, the strains of class based status discontent present
lower class youth with a common problem that is solved by embracing delinquent values
that offer opportunities for status enhancement and “the psychic satisfaction of rejecting
respectable values that lie beyond their reach” (Lilly et., al., 2011: 70). Thus, Farrington’s
short term energizing factors, particularly frustration and anger might be symptomatic
expressions of larger social processes at work, processes beyond the control of the
individual.
In sum, an examination of Farmington’s first two propositions in the context of
strain theory moves the focus away from psychological explanations towards structural
factors that contribute to crime and delinquency. Nonetheless, to understand Farrington’s
model as an integrative theory of crime it is necessary to also acknowledge how micro-
level process variables (e.g. attachment to ones parents) explain delinquency (Sampson
and Laub, 1993). Indeed, Sampson and Laub (1993) maintain that understanding how
process variables contribute to delinquency is important given that, “informal social
controls derived from the family and schools mediate the effects of both individual and
structural background variables” (pg. 19). As such, as I explain in the following section
social control theory can be used to explain the next aspect of Farrington’s model
concerning “inhibiting factors.”

Control Theory

Farrington (2003) argues that when beliefs and attitudes are built up in a social learning
process that consists of rewards and punishments antisocial tendencies can be reduced.
More specifically, individuals are more likely to view offending negatively when they
have parents who favour legal norms, exercise close supervision, and punish
inappropriate behaviour with love-oriented methods. Farrington contends further that
parental warmth and loving relationships can elicit empathy which can also help to
inhibit antisocial tendencies. Thus, children who fail to “build up internal inhibitions
against socially disapproved behaviour” are more likely to offend (pg. 167). Moreover,
children that have delinquent friends and that come from criminal families will “build up
anti-establishment attitudes and the belief that offending is justifiable” (pg. 168).
Farrington’s proposition is problematic on two grounds. Firstly, Farrington again
stresses the psychological while downplaying social processes that may inhibit crime.
Secondly, this proposition depicts a static conception of the anti-social individual doomed
to a life of failure and unruly conduct from childhood onward (Lilly et. al., 2011).
However, as Sampson and Laub (2003) explain desistance from crime is universal and
childhood risk factors do not appear to predict the point at which desistance takes place
(Lilly, et. al., 2011). In what follows, I will explain how Farrington’s proposition can be
attributed to, and expanded by social control theory (Hirschi, 1969; Hirschi and
Gottfredson, 1990; Reckless, 1967; Reiss, 1951; Sampson and Laub, 1993).
Very generally, control theory deems deviant and criminal behaviour to be innate
but, in most cases, “restrained by internalized and external informal social control, due to
bonding to social control agents such as parents, family, peers, school, and community –
that is, to the social integration of the individual” (Carrington, 2011: 237). Arguably,
Farrington’s position is largely consistent with more recent conceptions of control theory

902
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990), which emphasize stability and continuity of

psychological factors believed to inhibit crime, as opposed to alternative
conceptualizations of the theory that place more emphasis on social processes that reduce
delinquent propensities.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) advocate for a general theory of crime that
considers criminal behavior and delinquency to be a stable trait extending over the life
course. Their theory of self-control contends that individuals who lack self-control will
lack the necessary restraints to avoid delinquency and thus are propelled into a life of
crime. As such, self-control is conceptualized as a permanent internal state acquired early
in life. Gottfredson and Hirschi, (1990) thus emphasize the importance of quality
parenting in early childhood. Similar to Farrington’s model Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
theory explains crime and delinquency in terms of the psychological while downplaying
the social and ignoring the propensity for change over the life course.
Alternative conceptions of control theory are more integrative in nature insofar as
they are rooted in social-psychological explanations which recognize that both
psychological and social factors must be used to explain crime and delinquency
(Reckless, 1967; Reiss, 1951). Proponents argue that to prevent delinquent and criminal
behaviour individuals must be socialized to accept and respect legal norms (Hirschi,
1969; Reiss, 1951). Indeed, delinquency is conceptualized to be the consequence of
unsuccessful socialization provided by primary groups (eg. family, neighborhood, school)
(Reiss, 1949). Reiss (1951) contends that delinquency results from the failure of personal
and social control. Reiss (1951) defines personal control as “the ability of the individual
to refrain from meeting needs in ways which conflict with the norms and rules of the
community” (pg.196), while social control is defined as “the ability of social groups or
institutions to make norms or rules effective” (pg. 196). According to most control
theorist’s effective child rearing practices are crucial in order to encourage self control
and thus elicit law abiding behaviour.
In his earlier work Hirschi’s (1969) conception of control was more sociological
in nature. Hirschi vehemently criticized numerous theories of crime for their focus on
explicating something that does not need to be explained- motivation (Lilly et. al., 2011).
For Hirschi criminologists should be asking why individuals do not break the law; this
conception of control theory rejects the explanation of crime through psychological
explanations of internalized control, and instead adopts a sociological approach that
explains control in terms of an individuals’ relationship with conventional order (Lilly et.
al., 2011). Hirschi (1969) maintains that when an individual’s bonds to society are
weakened, or absent, the propensity to engage in antisocial behaviour and crime increases
(Hirschi, 1969). From this perspective control is not manifested in a psychological trait or
established set of beliefs, but rather, resides in an individual’s relationship to
conventional society including bonds to people, institutions, and societal beliefs (Hirschi,
1969). Moreover, unlike Hirschi’s theory of self-control, social bonds are not limited to
childhood, there is potential for their formation at any age (Lilly et. al., 2011).
Sampson and Laub (1993) offer a more comprehensive conception of social
control theory which rejects the deterministic nature of social bond theory, and related
assumptions of criminal stability, while recognizing that social bonds and the informal
social controls they provide can and do change throughout the life course and these
changes can be used to explain persistence and desistence from crime. Their age-graded

903
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

theory of social control acknowledges the potential for Individuals to transform antisocial
trajectories during adolescence or young adulthood by acquiring positive social bonds
(Sampson and Laub, 1993; see also Jacob, 2010). In sum, as Jacob (2010) explains it is
important to recognize that the sources and relative strength of social controls vary
throughout the life course; as such the significance of social bonding extends beyond
childhood into adolescence, “as age-graded sources of informal social control contribute
to changes in antisocial and delinquent behaviour” (2010: ii). Thus, to return to
Farrington’s proposition, it is important to recognize the inhibiting stage as more than a
psychological internalization of control; rather we must recognize that this social learning
involves complex social processes that extend well beyond the psychological. Further,
this process is subject to change throughout the life course. The focus of the paper will
now shift to a discussion about the implications of Farrington’s psychological model in
terms of broader policy initiatives.

Policy Implications

Theories are relevant not only for knowledge building but also for policy development.
Indeed, when it comes to criminal justice policy “ideas have consequences” (Szasz,
1987).5 Theories provide conceptual understandings as to why crime occurs and, in
consequence, elucidate strategies to control crime (Lilly et. al., 2011). As such theory has
direct implications for policy development.
Unsurprisingly, the main policy implications derived from Farrington’s theorizing
are relevant to risk assessment and risk focused prevention (Farrington, 2003:170). In
order to reduce delinquent and criminal behavior risk based policies seek to identify and
address risk factors (e.g. antisocial behavioral tendencies) that have been found to be
linked to delinquent conduct. As Farrington (2003) explains, “Risk-focused prevention
suggests that in order to reduce offending, the key risk factors should be identified and
programs should be implemented to tackle these risk factors” (pg. 171). Farrington offers
three brief examples of the types of programs implemented under risk models: The first
program addresses issues of low intelligence and attainment targeting high risk children
in the preschool years. The second program is aimed at improving poor parental child
rearing behaviour through educational programs offered in pregnancy and the first few
years of parenthood. The final program is intended to target impulsivity by offering
cognitive-behavioral skills training (Farrington, 2003).
Farrington’s psychological model, focused on antisocial behavior and its proposed
link to life course criminal propensities, is largely consistent with broader policy
concerns. Indeed, Farrington’s model is aligned with current social discourses and
political ideologies that shape criminal justice today. It is crucial to acknowledge how
social context influences the way in which we theorize about crime (Lilly, 2011). To
borrow from Dorothy Smith (1990), we must not govern in abstract concepts and
symbols rather we must situate our knowledge in the “direct embodied experience of the
everyday world” (pg. 22). Indeed, historical research on crime and deviance has
undoubtedly elucidated that approaches to crime control in any given era are directly

5
As cited in Lilly et., al., (2011: 5).

904
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

attributable to contemporary notions of crime causation (Lilly, 2011). As such, social

context, criminological theory and policy are inexorably related (Lilliy, 2011: 7).

Antisocial Youth and Policy

Accoding to Warr (2002), the age distribution of crime is irrefutable. Indeed, several
researchers have argued that during middle to late adolescence offending rates across
nearly all crime categories increase (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Wolfgang et. al.,
1987; Moffitt, 1993). Given that youth are disproportionately engaged in various forms of
delinquent behaviour a discussion of the current social context must first address the way
in which youth are constructed. It appears societal constructions of youth move between
two competing ideologies: one that renders youth in need of protection, and a second that
essentially problematizes and demonizes youth rendering adults in need of protection
(Crawford, 2009; Pearson, 1983). It can be argued that this latter conception most closely
characterizes how youth are constructed today. This perception is perhaps amplified
given that youth today are postponing commitments of work and family well into early-
adulthood, which is perceived by many to lead to a commitment-free pre-adulthood life
characterized by antisocial and criminal behavior (Crawford, 2009). Yet, this fear of
“criminal youth” is not new, in fact, older generations tend to contrast a mythical golden
age of “obedient youth” with current generations of youth characterized as “out of
control” and thus, spiraling into a state of irrevocable social disorder (Pearson, 1983).
According to Pearson (1983) this cycle of “respectable fear” reminds us that the origins
of youth crime cannot be explained in terms of conditions of the present but rather are
rooted in socio-economic relations characteristic of modern capitalist societies (Pearson,
1983: 236-242).
Further, this construction of “dangerous youth” is perpetuated quite frequently in
the media (Crawford, 2009; Pearson, 1983; Yanich, 2005). According to Crawford
(2009) for example, sensationalist media representations of ‘youth gangs’ and ‘feral
children’ terrorizing Britain’s streets has fostered myriad cover stories like the one in
Time Magazine in April 2008, titled: “Unhappy, Unloved, and Out of Control – An
Epidemic of Violence, Crime and Drunkenness has made Britain Scared of its Young.” A
similar sentiment is upheld across North America where youth crime is often
contextualized within tragedies like the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton,
Colorado, in April 1999. Indeed, Gilliam & Iyengar (1998) contend, “the Columbine
story offered the perfect vehicle for the view of the juvenile as superpredator—violent,
remorseless and impulsive pre-adults responsible for widespread mayhem” (pg.45).6
Much evidence suggests that the construction of youth as risk prevails and consequently,
youth are to be held accountable for their ‘bad’ behaviour (Crawford, 2009).
In the realm of criminal justice this conception of dangerous youth has led to a
process of “adulteration” (Crawford, 2009: 22). In other words, when it comes to defining
behaviour and criminal responsibility youth are increasingly being treated like adults
(Goldson, 2004). Perhaps unsurprisingly, this philosophy is consistent with broader
ideological changes within the justice system. Indeed, over the course of the past four
decades the Western justice system has abandoned rehabilitative programs and developed
6
As cited in Yanic (2005: 104).

905
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

a more putative approach, one that emphasizes ‘tough’ on crime methodologies (Levrant
et al, 1999; Presser and Hamilton, 2006). Influenced largely by the emergence of the neo-
liberal state (see for example Gordon, 2006; O’Malley, 1996) this line of reasoning
favours medicalization, individualization, punishment, and incarceration for those who
break the law. For example, the increasing desire to punish and prohibit was remarkably
clear in the war against drugs, as Luttwak suggests, “From the quasi criminal to the
politically incorrect, all manner of behaviour, attitude and gesture is subject to taboo and
control. The always criminal becomes more criminalized [and] the quasi-criminal
becomes criminal” (pg.16). As I discuss below, this social context has serious
implications for policy development.
Within Neo-liberal discourse responsibility for crime is not considered a function
of systemic disadvantage, but rather, a function of individual decision making (O’Malley,
1996); this notion very much parallels the model purported by Farrington (2003). Indeed,
the neo-liberal emphasis on rational, responsible and self-regulating individuals means
that crime is understood and explained in terms of a calculating, free thinking offender
(O’Malley, 1996). Individuals are presumed to be morally responsible and rational, and
crime is understood as an inevitable set of risks that can be predicted and managed at
least to some extent (O’Malley 1996). In essence, within a neoliberal framework,
“…disadvantaged communities are defined as sites of trouble not tribulation” (Herbert,
2001:447 italics added).
Additionally, the shift toward individual responsibilitization has fostered support
for programs and policies based on the regulation of behaviours and their consequences.
For example, actuarial/insurance based techniques are increasingly favoured as a method
of governance, especially within the criminal justice system (O’Malley, 1996). Actuarial
techniques sort and classify individuals into particular categories (be they medical,
criminal, financial etc.) based on differing levels of risk (O’Malley, 2010; Simon, 1988).
These techniques embody and are aligned with putative and disciplinary technologies that
eschew collective risk management in favour of an individual, responsibilization of risk
management (O’Malley, 2010). Implicit in these techniques is the view that individuals
have control over their own lives and therefore, they possess the ability to make reasoned
choices and can take steps to change their behaviour (McCarthy, 2010).
To return again to Farrington’s research it is important to reiterate the fact that his
theory garners support for policies based on risk management which are largely aligned
with the techniques discussed above.7 More specifically, risk based policies are largely
consistent with actuarial techniques as well as ideologies espousing individual
reponsibilitization; this has led to an obsession with targeting and managing anti-social
behaviors particularly among youth (Crawford, 2009).8 Broader support for antisocial
governance has stemmed from a growing concern among policy administrators with adult
perceptions of insecurity (Crawford, 2009). Indeed, efforts to afford reassurance to
members of the public by addressing social anxieties (e.g. fear of troublesome youth as
described above) directly inform policy initiatives (Crawford, 2009).

7
Please note this is largely consistent with the notion of the risk society purported by Beck (1992); despite
its relevance however, a discussion of this theory is well beyond the scope of this paper.
8
To some extent it can be argued that Farrington’s research is driven by policy concerns, rather than
theoretical concerns (see for example Sampson and Laub, 2003).

906
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

According to Crawford (2009), numerous programs and interventions formulated

under the rubric of ‘tackling anti-social behaviour’ have permeated various areas of social
life including policy domains extending from, education, parenting, youth services, to,
city centre management, environmental planning, social housing and traditional policing
(pg.5). Anti-social policies seek to govern troublesome youth by disrupting, re-ordering
and steering their futures (Crawford, 2009; McCarthy, 2010). Early and preventative
interventions are adopted to directly target the “escalation of bad behavior at both an
individual and community level” (Crawford, 2009: 6).
I argue that anti-social policies are problematic on a number of grounds. Firstly,
as Burney (2005), explains across various organizations there is extreme variability in the
meaning and measurement of antisocial behaviour as well as in the adoption of diverse
interventions to address behaviour defined as such. The very definition of what exactly
constitutes anti-social behaviour is rather ambiguous. In fact, the term is used to explain
myriad activities, misdemeanors, incivilities and crimes (see for example Crawford,
2009). Moreover, the term is not defined any more concretely in legislation. For example,
in Britain anti-social behaviour is defined in legislation as “behaviour that causes or is
likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others” (Crawford, 2009: 5).9 This
definitional ambiguity serves a practical purpose insofar as it distorts distinctions
between crime and incivilities, conflates civil and criminal processes, and connects inter-
disciplinary approaches ultimately, permitting a range of oppressive legislative policies
(Crawford, 2009: 5; McCarthy, 2010).
Secondly, policies adopted under the guise of “antisocial behavioral regulation”
are problematic given that they primarily target and criminalize marginalized groups
within society. As Crawford (2009: 23) explains

We’re already paying the price for effectively demonizing and criminalizing a
generation… Let’s not beat about the bush, the anti-social behaviour agenda and respect
agenda are not targeted at the wider community. They are targeted at particular minorities
within it; young people.

In particular, research suggests that disadvantaged youth are directly targeted by these
types of policies. According to Gordon (2006), provincial legislation, and municipal
bylaws (for example the Safe Streets Act) have been utilized effectively to criminalize
vagrancy. For example, here in Canada the Safe Streets legislation rendered squeegee
kids deviant (O’Grady and Bright, 2002; Parnaby, 2003). According to Parnaby (2003),
through the use of disaster rhetoric anti-squeegee claimants suggested that squeegee kids
were, “indicative of rising crime rates and the overall deterioration of urban living
conditions” (pg.288). As such, squeegee kids were successfully constructed as a social
problem that necessitated a law and order resolution and direct police targeting. In fact,
the problem garnered so much public outcry that it was ultimately, “..addressed through
putative measures of social control backed by consonant legislation” (Parnaby, 2003:
283). This legislation provided Toronto officers with the authority to target and
criminalize those “antisocial youth deemed to belong to the squeegee culture.

9
Note that this definition is highly subjective and contextual (see Crawford, 2009). For instance some
people may define smoking as anti-social in nature, while others would not constitute this behaviour as
such.

907
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

In another example, McCarthy (2010) examined how police utilize and enforce
contractual injunctions (e.g. Antisocial Behaviour Orders [ABO’s]) in the United
Kingdom. McCarthy found that ABO’s give police the authority to target and criminalize
the behaviour of certain marginalized groups deemed problematic. In essence, ABO’s
were utilized as a means of criminalizing as well as enforcing compliance among the
marginalized, including substance abusers, homeless, and mentally ill individuals. ABO’s
are enforced as a means of moderating behaviour and removing the marginalized from
public spaces to areas where they are less viewable. According to McCarthy (2010), “this
enables methods of banishment to conveniently bypass the complexities of socially
marginal groups by removing them from the area” (Pp.905-906). In sum, this brief review
of policies that seek to address antisocial behavior elucidates the potential dangers of
adopting such measures. As I have highlighted throughout this paper, these policies de-
contextualize the complexities surrounding the etiology of criminal and delinquent
behaviour.

Conclusion

In this paper I have argued that Farrington’s developmental theory is problematic. In

particular, this model, which constructs crime and delinquency as a psychological
manifestation of an underlying antisocial personality disorder, is reductionist insofar as it
constructs crime in a narrow and largely stable manner. As such, I argue that his theory of
crime is better conceptualized as a model of crime. I argue further that one way to
address the shortcomings of Farrington’s model is to utilize integrative theoretical
perspectives that offer more nuanced and dynamic explanations and understandings of
crime throughout the life course (Hagan, 1997; Kaplan, 2003; Sampson and Laub, 1993;
Wikstrom and Loeber, 2000). Thus, as a means of reconceptualising Farrington’s model
strain theory and control theory were utilized to illuminate the importance of structural
and social processes leading to crime and delinquency, and to emphasize the potential for
discontinuity as well as change in criminal propensities over the life course.
In conclusion, it is imparative to recognize that theory and policy tend to
legitimate and reinforce one another (Lilly et al., 2011). Indeed, as I have explicated the
implications derived from Farrington’s model are largely consistent with the current
social context and broader political discourses surrounding prevention, intervention and
control of antisocial behaviour. Among those with little desire to transform social order it
is necessary to attribute sources of crime and deviance to “defective individuals” or the
“failure of institutions of socialization” (Lilly et al., 2011:300). However, it is time to
seriously evaluate the merit and efficacy of policies legitimated by psychological theories
of crime that seek to pathologize the individual while ignoring both the propensity for
change over the life course, as well as how social factors operating at both the macro-
structural level and at the micro level (i.e. intimate relationships) contribute to criminal
and antisocial behaviour.

908
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

References

Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. Los
Angeles: Roxbury.
Akers, R.L. (2000). Criminological Theories: Introduction, evaluation and application.
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing.
Bernard, T.J. (1997). Testing Structural Strain Theories. Crime and Delinquency, 24:
262-280.
Brym, R.J. (2004). New Society: Sociology for the 21st Century. (4th ed.) Toronto, ON:
Thomson Nelson Ltd.
Burney, E. (2005) Making People Behave: Anti-social Behaviour, Politics and Policy.
Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Carrington, P.J. (2011). “Crime and Social Network Analysis.” Pp. 236-255 in Sage
Handbook of Social Network Analysis, edited by J. Scott and P.J. Carrington.
London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Cloward, R.A. and L.E. Ohlin. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of
delinquent gangs. New York: Free Press.
Cohen, A.K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press.
Crawford, A. (2009). Criminalizing Sociability through Anti-social Behaviour
Legislation: Dispersal Powers, Young People and the Police. Youth Justice, 9(1):
5-26.
Cullen, F.T. and S.M. Messner. (2007). The Making of Criminology Revisited: An Oral
History of Merton’s Anomie Paradigm. Theoretical Criminology, 11: 5-37.
Farrington, D.P. (2003). “Key results from the first forty years of the Cambridge Study in
Delinquent Development.” Pp. 137-183 in Taking Stock of Delinquency, edited by
T.P. Thornberry and M.D. Krohn. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Goldson, B. (2004). “Victims or Threats? Children, Care and Control.” Pp. 77–109 in
Care: Personal Lives and Social Policy, edited by J. Fink. Bristol: Policy Press.
Gordon, T. (2006). Cops, Crime and Capitalism: The Law and Order Agenda in Canada.
Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Gottfredson, M.R. and T. Hirschi. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Hagan, J. (1997). “Crime and capitalization: Toward a developmental theory of street
crime in America.” Pp. 287-308 in Developmental Theories of Crime and
Delinquency. Vol. 7 of Advances in criminological theory, edited by T.P.
Thornberry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction,
Herbert, S. (2001). Policing the Broken City: Fixing Broken Windows or Shoring up
Neo-liberalism? Theoretical Criminology, 5(4): 445-466.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jacob, J.C. (2010). Pathways of Crime and Delinquency: A life-course analysis of
informal social control of antisocial behaviour. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology, University of Waterloo.
Kaplan, H. (1984). Patterns of Juvenile Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

909
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

Kaplan, H. (2003). “Testing an Integrative-Theory of Delinquent Behaviour: Theory-

Syntonic Findings from a Long-Term Multi-Generational Study.” Pp. 185-204 in
Taking Stock of Delinquency. edited by T.P. Thornberry and M.D. Krohn. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Laub, J.H. and R.J. Sampson. (2003). Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent
Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Levrant, S., F. T. Cullen, B. Fulton and J.F. Wozniak. (1999). Reconsidering Restorative
Justice: The Corruption of Benevolence Revisited? Crime and Delinquency,
45(1):3-27
Lilly, J.R., F.T. Cullen and R.A. Ball. (2011). Criminological Theory: Context and
Consequences (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Luttwak, E. (1999). Turbo Capitalism: Winners and Losers in the Global Economy. New
York: Harper Collins.
Macionis, J.J. and L.M. Gerber. 2011. Sociology. (7th ed.) Toronto, On: Pearson
Education Inc.
McCarthy, D.J. (2010). Self-Governance or Professionalized Paternalism: The Police,
Contractual Injunctions, and the Differential Management of Deviant Populations.
British Journal of Criminology, 50: 896-913.
Merton, K. (1938). Social Structure and Anomie. American Sociological Review, 3: 672-
682.
Messner, S.F. and R. Rosenfeld. (1994). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior:
A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100(4): 647-701.
Moffitt, T.E. and A. Caspi. (2001) Childhood Predictors Differentiate Life-Course
Persistent and Adolescence-limited Anti-Social Pathways among Males and
Female . Development and Psychopathology, 13: 355-375
Murray, C. (1984). Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980. New York:
Basic Books.
Napoleon, B. (year unknown). Brainy Quotes.com. Retrieved June 22, 2011
(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/theory.html).
O’Grady, B., and R. Bright. (2002). “Squeezed to the Point of Exclusion: The Case of
Toronto Squeegee Cleaners,” in Disorderly People: Law and the Politics of
Exclusion in Ontario, edited by J. Mosher and J. Hermer. Halifax: Fernwood.
O’Malley, P. (1996). “Risk and Responsibility.” Pp. 189-207 in Foucault and Political
Reason: Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism and Rationalities of Government, edited by
Barry T. Osborne and N. Rose. London: UCL Press.
O’Malley, P. (2010). Crime and Risk. London: Sage Publications.
Parnaby, P.F. (2003). Disaster Through Dirty Windshields: Law, Order and Toronto’s
Squeegee Kids. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(3): 281-307.
Pearson, G. (1983). Hooligan: A History of Respectable Fears. London: The MacMillan
Press.
Pfohl, S.J. (1985). Images of Deviance and Social Control. A Sociological History. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

910
International Journal of Criminology and Sociological Theory, Vol. 5, No.2, August 2012, 895-911

Presser, L. and C. Hamilton. (2006). The Micro Politics of Victim- Offender Mediation.
Sociological Inquiry, 76 ( 3): 316-342
Reckless, W.C. (1967). The Crime Problem (4th ed.). New York: Meredith.
Reiss, A.J. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American
Sociological Review, 16: 196-207.
Robins, L.N. (1978). Sturdy Childhood Predictors of Adult Antisocial Behaviour:
Replications from Longitudinal Studies. Psychological Medicine, 8: 611-622.
Rosenfeld, R. and S.F. Messner. (2011). The intellectual origins of institutional anomie
theory. Pp. 121-135 in The Origins of American Criminology (vol. 16), edited by
F.T. Cullen, C.L. Johnson, A.J. Myer and F. Adler. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Sampson, R.J. and J.H. Laub. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning
Points Through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Simon, J. (1988). The Ideological Effects of Actuarial Practices. Law and Society Review,
22: 773-99.
Smith, D. (1990). The Conceptual Practices of Power: A Feminist Sociology of
Knowledge. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Szasz, T. (1987). Insanity: The Idea and its Consequences. New York: John Wiley.
Warr, M. (2002). Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wikström, P.H. and R. Loeber. (2000). Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-
adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? A study of male juvenile
serious offending, individual risk and protective factors, and neighbourhood
context. Criminology 38(4): 1109-1142.
Williams, F.P. and M.D. Mcshane. (2004). Criminological Theory (4th edition). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson, Prentice Hall.
Wolfgang, M.E., R.M. Figlio, and T.Sellin. (1972). Delinquency in a Birth Cohort.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Yanic, D. (2005). Kids, Crime and Local Television News. Crime and Delinquency,
51(1): 103-132.

911